Pages

Monday, February 25, 2013

This is kind of a big deal. Google keyword: BUBBLEGATE
__________________________________
UPDATE

First, I suppose it is best to tell you what Sonoluminescence is.

A standing wave of sound creates a bubble in liquid. When the bubble
implodes, light is emitted. This is called: Sonoluminescence. Awesome.

Sonoluminescence is the emission of short bursts of light from imploding bubbles in a liquid when excited by sound.

In 1989 a major experimental advance was introduced by Felipe Gaitan and Lawrence Crum, who produced stable single-bubble sonoluminescence (SBSL). In SBSL, a single bubble trapped in an acoustic standing wave, emits a pulse of light with each compression of the bubble within the standing wave.
This technique allowed a more systematic study of the phenomenon,
because it isolated the complex effects into one stable, predictable
bubble. It was realized that the temperature inside the bubble was hot enough to melt steel. Interest
in sonoluminescence was renewed when an inner temperature of such a
bubble well above one million kelvins was postulated. This temperature
is thus far not conclusively proven, though recent experiments conducted
by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign indicate temperatures
around 20,000 K.

Sonoluminescence
can occur when a sound wave of sufficient intensity induces a gaseous
cavity within a liquid to collapse quickly. This cavity may take the
form of a pre-existing bubble, or may be generated through a process
known as cavitation. Sonoluminescence in the
laboratory can be made to be stable, so that a single bubble will expand
and collapse over and over again in a periodic fashion, emitting a
burst of light each time it collapses. For this to occur, a
standing acoustic wave is set up within a liquid, and the bubble will
sit at a pressure anti-node of the standing wave. The frequencies of resonance depend on the shape and size of the container in which the bubble is contained.

~
The light flashes from the bubbles are extremely short—between 35
and a few hundred picoseconds long—with peak intensities of the order of
1–10 mW.

~ The bubbles are very small when they emit the
light—about 1 micrometre in diameter—depending on the ambient fluid
(e.g., water) and the gas content of the bubble (e.g., atmospheric air).

~
Single-bubble sonoluminescence pulses can have very stable periods
and positions. In fact, the frequency of light flashes can be more
stable than the rated frequency stability of the oscillator making the
sound waves driving them. However, the stability analyses of the bubble
show that the bubble itself undergoes significant geometric
instabilities, due to, for example, the Bjerknes forces and
Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities.

~ The addition of a small
amount of noble gas (such as helium, argon, or xenon) to the gas in the
bubble increases the intensity of the emitted light. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonoluminescence
------
Now, onto Bubblegate - the cover-up.

It
seems that a group of scientist DID use the idea of sonoluminescence to
create fusion. It is called Acoustic Inertial Confinement Fusion.
When they successfully produced results in France at NURETH-11 for peer
review, they shortly afterward got hammered by the 'institutions'.

Initially
one of the scientists did experiments of Sonofusion at Oak Ridge
National Labs, but they couldn't get a good enough ratio of repeatable
results. I think the story goes like this...so, they went to Purdue
University. They used a variation in techniques and became successful.
This is when they decided to go to NURETH-11. A lawsuit was brought
into the mix, and all funding got cut off and they got caught up in
legal issues, which resulted in the main scientist getting debarred and
discredited (no funding, etc.), though affidavits out the butt proved
otherwise.

See below for the articles etc.

Read this letter.

Lahey Letter to Physics Today
Feb. 20, 2009
Response from Marty Hanna is below Lahey letterYou
write, “Independent research groups have so far failed to confirm the
result of Taleyarkhan’s group.” Indeed, this is at the heart of much of
the controversy concerning bubble fusion. However, this is false. Edward Forringer, William Bugg, Adam Butt, and Yiban Xu have performed and reported independent confirmations of bubble fusion. This is in addition to on-demand public demonstration of successful outcomes of bubble fusion on two occasions.[link to newenergytimes.com]

------
Now, who is Lahey? Google DARPA Lahey.

Holy crap. I think I found a cover-up. This is crazy...

OK, now check this out. This Lahey guy says they successfully did it!

------Lahey AffidavitTo the best of my recollection, I received from Taleyarkhan summary documentation of successful sonofusion results in June, 2005. How in the world could someone surmise that DARPA-UCLA funds, which arrived into the Purdue financial system in June, 2005, actually contribute to the intenseunderlying research to find a way to self-nucleate in a totally different fluid-mixture of vastlydifferent properties, in a differently designed test cell, with random vs timed nucleation, conducta large array oftests, including careful control experiments, within "seconds" of receivingfunding from a new source? The mere thought of suggesting the use of such funds for somethingalready largely accomplished (and only requiring publication) is totally bizarre.

cont.39. The above mentioned issues highlighted in the Press are a either wrongful orinaccurate allegations against Taleyarkhan (and in many respects all of us who worked with him)and have no merit. These are apparently desperate attempts by our competitors to detract fromour seminal work on the discovery of sonofusion.[link to newenergytimes.com]

The
researchers believe the new evidence shows that "sonofusion" generates
nuclear reactions by creating tiny bubbles that implode with tremendous
force. Nuclear fusion reactors have historically required large,
multibillion-dollar machines, but sonofusion devices might be built for a
fraction of that cost.[link to www.purdue.edu]

------Bubblegate Testimonials and Affidavits - Back to Bubblegate PortalBefore
Lefteri Tsoukalas was removed as the head of the Purdue School of
Nuclear Engineering, an extra-legal committee that he organized produced
the Feb. 23, 2006, Statement from Adam Butt. Someone provided this
document to Kenneth Chang of The New York Times. Chang has declined to
confirm or deny whether Tsoukalas provided the document. Chang has
confirmed that he received other related documents from Tsoukalas. Chang
made the decision to publish the unsigned, unnotarized, unsworn,
unverified document.

The Statement from Adam Butt caused severe
problems for Rusi Taleyarkhan, a professor in the School of Nuclear
Engineering. In response, numerous people came to Taleyarkhan's defense
with testimonials and affidavits. A number of the affidavits accuse
Tsoukalas of serious grievances. Some of them are now part of the public
record in legal proceedings...

...On March 1, 2006 I helped set up two experiment stations for review by the visitors. Thefirst and main station involved experiments needed for the DARPA-UCLA project (i.e., usingexternal neutrons). The second experiment involved self-nucleation for which Ken Suslick ofUniversity of Illinois Urbana-Champaign himself was invited to and did indeed randomly selectneutron detectors for mounting on the test cells and for use as controls. He also insisted on doingthe experiment in a particular way and we accommodated each of his requests during setup. Atthe end of the day, the detectors showed positive signatures of neutron emission as evidenced byseveral people in the audience. Neither I, nor anyone from Purdue engaged in misconduct of anykind and in fact went out ofour way to assist the visitors engage in a successful review.[link to newenergytimes.com]

------
They did it, didn't they? I mean, they did, but then funding got cut-off and they tried to discredit the researchers. Bubblegate.
They said it in signed affidavits. They did it, and were successful. It is plain as day in this affidavit:

Recent Advances and Results in Acoustic Inertial Confinement Bubble Nuclear Fusion
R. P. TaleyarkhanAbstractThis
paper provides an update on developments since the first announcement
of the discovery in 2002 of acoustic inertial confinement (a.k.a bubble)
nuclear fusion. A theoretical foundation for the supercompression of
acoustically driven deuterated bubble clusters has been developed and
published. Initially, bubble fusion experiments used external neutron
sources for nucleating bubble clusters, and despite compelling evidence,
lingering doubts remained because of the use of external neutrons to
maintain neutron production. This was overcome using a self-nucleation
method. In those novel experiments, seeding of nanometer bubbles was
accomplished using nuclear-decay recoils from dissolved uranyl nitrate. Bubble
fusion experiments have been replicated successfully, and confirmatory
results were reported at least five times since 2005. Moreover,
speculations and controversies about the discovery related to our bubble
fusion experiments have now been conclusively addressed, rebutted, and
dismissed.[link to newenergytimes.com]